• Alk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    We need more nuclear too. Clean energy is quickly overtaking unclean energy and I’m here for it.

    • Celeste@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Isn’t nuclear too expensive? Short term building reactors is very expensive and long term the waste.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, building reactors is too expensive. However, that’s mostly because the people building them in the US are utterly incompetent (source: I’m a Georgia Power ratepayer on the hook for Plant Vogtle 3 and 4) and also because every project has to fend off an army of unfounded lawsuits from misguided environmentalists.

        The waste issue is mostly just fake: not only do we have a perfectly good place to put it that we refuse to use for stupid reasons, even that was unnecessary to begin with because we should be reprocessing it instead.

      • metaStatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        every neutron is accounted for, that’s why it’s so expensive.

        it’s the only power generation where the waste isn’t just pumped directly into the atmosphere.

        • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Define ‘waste’. Depending on the plant design, a good chunk of the cooling is achieved by evaporating cooling water into the atmosphere. That could be waste.

          Does the air blown through a wind turbine count as waste going into the atmosphere? Same for hydro going downriver?

          I’m going to call this a stupid argument: we treat waste with the level of care the waste deserves, CO2 notwithstanding (and carbon capture being junk). Nuclear is expensive partly because its waste actually needs to be dealt with carefully.

    • 768@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Insurance, sustainability, waste, catastrophic risks, centralisation are all factors against nuclear energy and everything considered, I wouldn’t call it clean.

        • 768@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Don’t insult us with influencers.

          I don’t care about the next hundred years waste-wise that much, I care about the entire half-lifes of those elements.

          I care about Zaporiz’ka atomna elektrostantsiia in the same way that I care about the Euphrates dam.

          I care about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

          I care about Sellafield’s history.

          I care about France’s low drought resilience and dependency on Russian fuel.

          I care about concrete decay and geological/geomorphological processes affecting storage.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I care about concrete decay and geological/geomorphological processes affecting storage.

            That’s why they use clay in mountains.